The White Nationalist Manifesto by Dr. Greg Johnson

The White Nationalist Manifesto
Greg Johnson
San Francisco: Counter-Currents, 2018
150 pages

I first met Greg Johnson in 2001 as part of a group of fifteen conference attendees having a late dinner at the Grove Park Inn in Asheville, NC. Dr. Johnson was among those seated at my end of the table. To drop two familiar names, Sam Francis and Jared Taylor were among those seated at the other end. From his introduction I got the impression that Dr. Johnson was an academic doing research on our movement, accompanied by two grad students and a London journalist who was writing a book on political fringe groups. As I recall, he asked a lot of questions and did a lot of listening. Since that introduction he has risen to a position of  prominence and I would name him among the top ten living figures in our movement in terms of output, activity, influence and recognition, although I admit my rating system is biased in favor of intellectual output, which in Dr. Johnson’s case is considerable.

For those familiar with Dr. Johnson’s work there is much in this book that they have seen before, even some topics that have been covered by many different authors, such as Robert Putnam’s findings on the connection between diversity and alienation and John Jay’s celebration of America’s original lack of diversity in the Federalist No. 2. But this book is intended both as an introductory primer and comprehensive summation for potential converts and those new to the movement as well as a much more thorough and fully developed discussion of its topics for movement veterans.

What is new is the focus on the two ultimate topics of our movement. The first topic is the ultimate problem: the fact that our race is undergoing a process of destruction or genocide by multiracialism. The second topic is the ultimate and only sufficient solution to the problem: a grand separation of the races either by the removal of non-Whites (the only solution for Europe) or partition of the country’s territory into independent nations for the different racial groups, now commonly called “ethnostates,” a term derived from Wilmot Robertson’s 1992 book of that title which has gained increasing currency over the last decade.

This reviewer has two upcoming articles in The Occidental Quarterly addressing these same two ultimate topics,1 as well as an earlier article dating to when Dr. Johnson was the editor,2 but given the central importance of these topics to our race and movement they should receive far more attention than has hitherto been the case. As central and important as they are, they have been largely neglected, unacknowledged or even avoided by movement authors. Only in the last decade or so, as the term ‘ethnostate’ has gained in currency, has it become common for authors to acknowledge these two topics as the ultimate problem and solution, but they have not commonly been as fully developed or addressed in nearly as much depth as Dr. Johnson does in this book.

A manifesto is a declaration of policy, beliefs and aims, motives and intentions, making them clear and obvious, or manifest, with nothing hidden or held back. In the introduction Dr. Johnson describes the book as “an essay in metapolitics….to offer a clear, concise and persuasive synthesis of arguments that I have been developing for more than a decade” (p. 7), with metapolitics defined as “creating the conditions necessary for political success” (p. 6). He dismisses diversity as just a euphemism for replacing Whites with non-Whites as a lead-in to White Nationalism, which ”simply means the right of all White peoples to sovereign homelands” and its goal “to replace multiracial, multicultural societies with racially and culturally homogeneous homelands, which we call ‘ethnostates’ (p. 4)… . To create or restore White ethnostates, different groups sharing the same territories must separate. This requires moving borders and people…. I argue that the process of racial separation…need not be swift, violent, or inhumane” (p. 5). This reviewer agrees that it need not be any of those things, and I certainly don’t want it to be violent or inhumane, but what is wrong with “swift” that it should be grouped with such negative paths to be avoided? More on this later.

With the first chapter, titled “White Extinction,” Dr. Johnson starts with a bang, jumping right on the topic of the ultimate problem:

White Nationalists believe that the current social and political system has put our race on the road to biological extinction. If present trends are not reversed, Whites will disappear as a distinct race.

To many Whites, this sounds like an absurd and alarmist claim, given that there are anywhere from 700 million to one billion of us on the planet today. Part of that skepticism is simply psychological denial in the face of an unpleasant prospect. Non-Whites seldom show skepticism about White extinction. Indeed, our enemies take our eventual disappearance for granted and openly gloat about our decline.

I wish to argue, however, that White extinction is not an alarmist fantasy, but an alarming fact, the inevitable conclusion of sober, informed analysis. (p. 9)

Dr. Johnson is quite correct in his observation that many Whites are clueless about our ultimate racial problem. Even Whites who are in the top ranks of the judiciary, science, mathematics, business, etc.—all with verifiably high IQs—commonly seem totally unaware of what is happening to their race. To the extent this is not conformist and careerist pretense, it is proof that IQ is not everything, with many seeming to be racially blind and lacking in racial sense and sensibility. They do not have the ability to see, understand, value and care about race. Thus, one of our most important “metapolitical” tasks is to make the ongoing destruction of our race clear and visible to our race, so they can see it and it becomes real to them. This book is important primarily because it is effective in this task.

Dr. Johnson points out that “White extinction is not natural but man-made. Thus, if our race is to survive, the first thing we must do is not defeat nature, but other men.” He discusses the causes of extinction: habitat loss, invasive species (or other races) that compete in the same ecological niche, and hybridization, “meaning reproduction, but not reproduction of one’s distinct biological type. Hybridization is only possible if a sufficiently similar species [or a different race of the same species] invades one’s ecological niche.” When these conditions are caused by men it is “cold genocide…the slow destruction of a group simply by establishing conditions that make its long-term survival impossible.”

To make the ongoing destruction of the White race more visible and real to his readers Dr. Johnson explains that replacement of all-White societies with multiracial societies is a form of habitat loss which deprives Whites of safe breeding spaces, depressing their birthrates. “The search for safe White breeding spaces is one of the driving forces behind suburbanization and exurbanization following the collapse of White supremacy, the emancipation of indigenous non-White populations, and the flooding of White lands by non-White immigrants.” Multiracialization in turn enables hybridization, which is

a cause of White extinction, since it fails to reproduce the racial type. Miscegenation is inevitable if different human races are allowed to associate freely in the same environment. Thus in the past, when racial integrity was valued, there were social and legal barriers to miscegenation in multiracial societies. Those barriers have been swept away. Today…people are not merely “free” to miscegenate. Miscegenation is actively encouraged by the media and educational system. (pp. 13-14)

After effectively establishing the reality of the ultimate White racial problem, Dr. Johnson moves to the topic of the ultimate solution: “we need to create or restore homogeneously White homelands, either by moving borders or moving peoples, i.e., through racial partition and secession schemes or the removal of non-White populations” (p. 24).  “Under the present system, Whites will become extinct, and…the only real solution is the creation of White ethnostates” (p. 42). “A race facing genocide cannot afford to indulge in sentimentality, moderation, and half-measures” (p. 94). “The rightward route embraces the deepest meaning and impetus of White Nationalism. It rejects diversity entirely in favor of the idea of the ethnostate. It is willing to move peoples and borders to create racially and ethnically homogeneous homelands for all European peoples who aspire to self-determination. This is the ultimate aim of White Nationalism as I conceive it” (p. 136). In several passages spread through the book he describes his approach to the realization of the ethnostate:

We don’t have to be in a hurry. The next time a non-White family has to move for economic reasons, we will just make sure that they move outside our homelands … . White genocide is a process unfolding over generations. Its architects knew very well that its ultimate end is the extinction of the White race … . They conceived a slower, safer process of genocide. They knew that if anti-White demographic trends were set in motion and sustained over time—i.e., lower birthrates, collapsing families, miscegenation, non-White immigration, non-White penetration of White living spaces, etc.—the long-term result would be White extinction, and very few Whites would become aware of it, much less fight back, until resistance was pretty much futile anyway … . We need to set in motion a well-planned, orderly, and non-violent process of repatriation.

There is, moreover, no hurry. Our enemies planned to eliminate us over generations. We can take a few decades to set things right. If some people will not worry about White demographic displacement because it will happen after their deaths, why should they worry about our plan for White demographic restoration, since it too will unfold slowly over decades and only reach fulfillment well after they are dead? Even though the restoration of White homelands may take a couple of generations, there will be immediate psychological dividends for Whites once we know our race has a future again … . Once we restore hope for the future, our people will start living as if the ethnostate is already here. Those who fight for a better world live in it today. (pp. 40–47)

America could become a normatively White society again tomorrow. That is simply a matter of will. And once that decision is in place, we can…move from multiculturalism toward the White ethnostate. This process might take fifty years. But we could take our time to get it right, because Whites would begin to reap enormous psychological benefits today, simply by knowing that our people have a future again. (p. 96)

I am willing to entertain civic nationalist approximations to the ethnostate as temporary, expedient compromises with political reality. For instance, I believe that White Nationalists should seriously promote a new immigration/emigration policy that aims to return to the ethnic status quo of 1965, which was in many ways the peak of American civilization. The goal would simply be to erase the catastrophic error of opening our borders to the Third World. This transformation could take place gradually, with 2065 as the target date for completion … . But there is no guarantee that such a racially segregated society would not eventually grow complacent, then delusional and profligate, repeating all the mistakes that are destroying us today. Thus White Nationalists will have to keep moving the goalposts toward the complete realization of the ethnostate. (p. 136)

After effectively establishing the reality of White genocide, and rejecting sentimentality, moderation and half-measures in the effort to defeat it and secure White existence by the creation of an ethnostate, Dr. Johnson’s plan for doing so strikes this reviewer as anticlimactic. While its spatial sense is unknown and thus uncertain, it is certainly anticlimactic in the temporal sense, with a gradual process that might take fifty years, a couple of generations, or until well after those opposed to it are dead. Unfortunately, most of those who are in favor of the ethnostate, who presumably worked and fought against seemingly impossible odds to win it—and want to enjoy their victory by living in it—will also be dead. Fifty years is the life expectancy of a 29-year-old man. In his final word on the subject Dr. Johnson moves the goalposts back even further, taking until 2065 just to return to the racial status quo of the supposedly halcyon days of 1965, when Wilmot Robertson had already begun writing The Dispossessed Majority to address what he, like most White Americans at the time, rightly saw as a major racial problem, and the more aware (including my teenage self) recognized as a potential catastrophe. If our racial victory came in 2060, this might be a worthwhile intermediate goal, but in 2025, or even 2050, I would not consider it such.3 The timeframe of this plan doesn’t inspire me with excitement or enthusiasm, or confidence. As Dr. Johnson notes (p. 45), the realization of any plan would require that White Nationalists attain and retain political control until the program is complete. Given the uncertainties of political power, the longer a program takes to complete the less confidence there can be in its eventual successful realization and the greater the risk of failure.

Since the population transfers required for the creation of separate ethnostates through partition could be feasibly completed in less than five years (see below), dragging out the process to take more than ten times as long — with the resulting loss of the momentum that carried us to victory and would still be needed to overcome the delay and obstruction tactics of the anti-White resistance — would be a tremendous concession to the opponents of White preservation and the ethnostate. Much could happen in this half-century reprieve (or period of grace) to prevent the program’s realization, and our opponents could cause or exploit all of them. White Nationalism could lose control, or be changed from within, like the South African National Party after the assassination of Hendrik Verwoerd in 1966, losing its original purpose and goals. Or a long list of other things could go wrong, all proving the folly of unnecessary delay as the opened door is again closed and the once golden opportunity is lost. We can’t count on baby steps or a slow walk process to save our race. We’ll need “The Big Mo.”

Dr. Johnson is firm in his conviction that “the price of not pursuing White homelands is extinction, and compared to that prospect, what we lose by going to extremes is negligible. What critics call going to extremes is simply what White Nationalists call erring on the side of caution” (p. 94). And in this book he makes a convincing argument in support of his conviction, both that the White race is being destroyed by multiracialism and that the creation of White homelands is necessary to bring that destruction to a halt and prevent it in the future. His success in doing so makes this an important and useful book for our movement, helping to fill the great gap in our awareness of our situation, of what is happening to us and what we need to do in response.

But it also shows us that however difficult it is to address the destruction and genocide of our race, it is far more difficult to address the grand racial separation into ethnostates that is the only sufficient solution. As hard as it is to make our racial genocide visible and real to our audience and from that to establish the necessity of separate racial homelands (both of which Dr. Johnson succeeds in doing), it is much harder to go into the actual details of the creation of the ethnostate in a way which makes it believable and real. On this subject — and especially the fact that any credible plan would have to involve mandatory mass population transfers backed by force— the very normal reaction is to balk and sidestep the issue rather than engage it. Proposing a fifty-year process — even if motivated by the questionable belief that it would lessen or avoid the need for forceful measures — is quite a sidestep. Better to be vague than to remove the ethnostate from our lifetimes and take away our hope of living in what Dr. Johnson calls “a nice White country.”

A manifesto is not the place for reticence, but reticence is understandable. Our bourgeois (e.g., the Constitution) and Christian values impose a high bar on the justified use of force. Does the continued existence of our race, its salvation from destruction and genocide, its sovereignty, freedom, independence and control of its own existence, meet that threshold that would justify the use of well-regulated force necessary to attain these ends? These ends and the grievances they address are immeasurably greater than those invoked in the Declaration of Independence. Indeed, there has never been, and can never be, any greater.

In addition to the moral and emotional concerns that discourage many from seriously considering the ethnostate is the belief that the daunting physical and logistical magnitude of the task makes it impractical or even impossible, and therefore utopian. But is that true? At least with regard to transportation we have numbers we can crunch, and many will find the results surprising.

Let’s calculate the transportation logistics of population transfers involving the relocation of 150 million people (or 65 million households at an average of 2.3 members per household) and their personal property or goods (furniture, etc.) an average distance of 1,000 miles. In the U.S. 1.4 trillion miles are travelled per year by passenger vehicles (or 3.3 trillion passenger miles, with an average of 2.36 occupants per vehicle). If 150 million people relocated in vehicles, with an average of 2.3 occupants (the average household size) per vehicle and an average travel distance of 1,000 miles, that would be 65 billion vehicle miles (and 150 billion passenger miles), or 4.64% of the normal annual total. There are 7.3 traffic fatalities per billion passenger miles giving a total of 1,095 expected transportation fatalities (150 x 7.3) for the relocations.

Regarding personal property, up to 200 billion miles are traveled each year by semi-trailer trucks which can carry the personal property of three average households. Relocating the goods of 65 million households (150 million people) by semi-trailers (averaging three households per trailer) an average of 1,000 miles would total 21.67 billion travel miles, or 10.83% of the normal annual semi-trailer total. Many people would be unable or unwilling to relocate themselves and would probably be moved primarily by bus. As there are only 0.11 fatalities per billion passenger miles for buses, whatever percentage were moved by bus would essentially reduce the number of traffic fatalities by the same percentage. If the actual average distance for the transfers was 1,250 miles rather than the baseline 1,000 miles the figures would be increased by 25%, with the passenger miles being 5.8% and the semi-trailer miles 13.54% of the normal annual totals. These figures indicate that the transportation logistics of relocating 150 million people and their personal property in a time frame as short as a year would be quite feasible.

Matching people with new homes and jobs would perhaps be more complicated, although many transferees would have the ability and the preference to make those arrangements themselves. Some areas would probably require additional infrastructure and housing, which could be mostly prefabricated to reduce cost and time.

However much we might hope and wish for an immaculate partition, the process probably won’t be as simple and easy as the above calculations might make it seem, but at least they show that we need not be so intimidated by its scale that we shrink from the prospect.

Turning to Europe, Dr. Johnson pays due attention to the growing racial problem that has developed in the postwar era. He rightly values and seeks to preserve the different racial types and nations of Europe, favoring “sensible policies to preserve the ethnic and subracial diversity of White peoples. Just as I am an ethnonationalist on the condition that it is qualified by a broader White racial solidarity, I am also a White Nationalist on the condition that it preserves rather than undermines distinct White ethnic groups” (pp. 64–65). That “broader White solidarity” means that Europeans in Europe and the European-settled nations abroad need to transcend their differences to make common cause as Whites against their common anti-White enemy:

We…have to talk about Whiteness…because the present political system insists that it is possible for people of all races to be American or English or Swedish. For a very long time, it went without saying that only White people could be part of any European nation. But multiculturalism and civic nationalism seek to divorce European national identities from Whiteness. Thus to save our nations—and through them our race as a whole—we have to talk explicitly about Whiteness. We have to assert that being White is a necessary condition of belonging to any European national group … [and] that non-Whites can be members of White nations only by virtue of legal fictions. Not every White man is a Swede, but every Swede is a White man. (p.61)

A broader sense of pan-European racial solidarity [is] necessary to secure racial survival and flourishing. Creating such solidarity is imperative. Thus we must emphasize all the things that Europeans have in common, and beyond all the differences of language, culture, and religion, the deepest root of European identity and solidarity is racial. All Europeans share common ancestors. We are one extended family.

Blacks, Arabs, and South Asians in Europe do not see Frenchmen, Englishmen, and Germans. They simply see White men. And we simply see non-Whites. Our differences do not matter to them, and their differences do not matter to us. As racial tensions increase in Europe, our people will realize that they are not being attacked as Frenchmen or Germans, but simply as White men. And when Europeans resist ethnic displacement, they will increasingly regard their race as their nation and their skin as their uniform. The sooner we see ourselves as White people, united by common enemies and challenges, sharing a common origin and a common destiny, the sooner we will be equal to the tasks facing us. (p. 62)

Dr. Johnson provides his own summation of the book’s central message in the “…four political absolutes that White Nationalists cannot compromise on:”

  1. Whiteness is a necessary condition of being part of any European nation. Therefore, no non-racial form of…nationalism is sufficient to defend European peoples.

  2. The White race is threatened with…biological extinction, compared to which all other political issues are trivial distractions. White extinction, moreover, is the predictable result of political policies. So we are facing not just extinction but genocide. Only by recognizing the…nature of the threat can we define a real solution and create the necessary moral seriousness and urgency to implement it.

  3. The only tenable solution to the threat of White extinction is White Nationalism: the creation of homogeneously White homelands for all White peoples, which will require moving borders and people.

  4. Jews are a distinct people and belong in their own homeland … . The organized Jewish community is also one of the principal architects of the policies we wish to change, and one of the main impediments to correcting them. (p. 111)

Our movement is blessed with prominent figures, such as Dr. Johnson, who take seriously their position as the adults in the room, counseling civil behavior and practicing what they preach. Dr. Johnson has made a particular effort to provide sound guidance, direction and advice to keep the movement healthy, united, growing and out of trouble, and he provides many examples of that in this book. Consider his approach to harmful sectarian tendencies:

There are people who insist on combining White Nationalism with a list of Right-wing add-ons…[and] insist that these peripheral issues are essential to White preservationism … . This approach is guaranteed to create a smaller, weaker, dumber, poorer, and less effective … movement, when we need to go in precisely the opposite direction.

Such behavior is often dismissed as “purity spiraling.” But purity is not a problem. The problem is failing to distinguish between what is essential and what is peripheral to White identity politics. We should keep our core principles pure. The mistake is to demand purity on marginal matters as well. (p. 120)

We should focus on what unites us, the great cause we have in common. Then, as Dr. Johnson writes, “We will be united by our common goal of racial salvation” (p. 121).

Looking at the course of our movement, and the larger metapolitical and political trends in general, Dr. Johnson projects the developments of the last few years into the future and makes some predictions that end on a high note:

Implicit White Nationalism is the animating principle of the growing populist- nationalist movements across the White world …  . As populist-nationalists rack up victories, we will inevitably move from implicit to explicit racial advocacy, and we will switch from defense to offense. We will not just halt White dispossession, we will reverse it. (p. 135)

Amen to that.


1.”Visions of the Ethnostate” in the upcoming Fall, 2018 issue and “Confronting our Genocide” in the upcoming Winter, 2019 issue.

  1. “Separate or Die” in the Winter , 2009 issue.
  2. The return to the ethnic status quo of 1965 might be a sufficient goal for Australia and the Scandinavian countries, while the status quo of 1947 might be a sufficient goal for Britain, France, Germany and the Netherlands.

 

64 replies
  1. Blue Corgi
    Blue Corgi says:

    Excuse me while I go vomit, again. I’ll slip off and return as discreetly as possible, so as not to disturb the black co-worker to the right of me, the jew to the left of me, and the Asians before and behind my desk.

    • Andrew Towne
      Andrew Towne says:

      Yes, those groups — blacks, Jews and Asians — can advocate for their own racial and ethnic interests, but it’s “nauseating” when whites do it.

      Actually, what’s nauseating is people like you.

    • Peter
      Peter says:

      What is nauseating to me is when a country that is Christian and almost completely white (European) can be altered beyond recognition in 50 years by importing millions of non-whites and at the same time have the whites thrown out of all the leading institutions (universities, think tanks, etc.) after welcoming outsiders into their country and then be told they’re racists because they are privileged, while in fact the only privileged ones are Jews that engineered the whole thing to enhance their power and security, but they are insulated from criticism because everyone thinks the Jews grandparents were made into lampshades and soap 75 years ago, and most whites are completely ignorant that they have been stripped of any power they had and they have no idea who actually holds the power and aren’t allowed to talk about it if they do know, so as not to offend the Jews.

      • Berne Mallow
        Berne Mallow says:

        They are not insulated from criticism out of pity but mostly out of fear. It is truly amazing that such a small group can bend the rest of the world to its will but they can. When people have challenged them they have always prevailed. Either it’s divine provenance or we gentiles are pretty easy to manipulate. And don’t tell me about the Christian ethic of loving one’s enemies since Christians have no reticence about calling for the mass murder of Muslims.

        • Peter
          Peter says:

          I agree with most of what you wrote except that “When people have challenged them they have always prevailed”. One of the things I think I learned from TOO, Michael E Jones and some other sources is that they have often had power in this country or that and usually as a group were wealthier than others, but it wasn’t until after the French Revolution that their power really took off. Then the world wars came, enhancing their power further. WW II was the showdown between Europeans, led by Germans on the one side and the Jews leading the USSR and capitalist countries on the other side and the Jews won the war and saw their power perhaps double as a result of their victory. But Greg Johnson, Kevin MacDonald, Andrew Joyce and others inspire hope in me that they can have that power taken away again, just as it was granted to them.

          Their values are different than Europeans. We value truth in science and beauty in art. They value power above everything else and if promoting science that they know is fraudulent will enhance their power, they will do it because it is power they value above everything else and if promoting art that is often ugly (modern art) will enhance their power, they will do that too . Thus, Europeans are kept down and their creativity replaced with the Jews view of what a culture should be. Besides being intelligent, they are racist and would never let Europeans grab the amount of power in their country (say Israel) that Europeans have allowed them to take in Europe and other countries.

          They win because they crave power above everything else and others have different values, so they are incompatible with any other people.

        • Dave Bowman
          Dave Bowman says:

          Christians have no reticence about calling for the mass murder of Muslims

          Garbage. Sources or retract.

      • TJ
        TJ says:

        Jews are insulated from criticism due to their near total monopoly on information, not because of the soap opera of 75 years ago.

      • Michael Adkins
        Michael Adkins says:

        Peter,

        “whites thrown out of all the leading institutions (universities, think tanks, etc.) after welcoming outsiders into their country”

        Such is the power of the Abrahamic religions.

    • White Matriarch
      White Matriarch says:

      “The actualization of the right of national self-determination in the state of Israel is unique to the Jewish people…

      “The state will labor to ensure the safety of sons of the Jewish people…

      “The state will act to preserve the cultural, historical and religious legacy of the Jewish people among the Jewish diaspora,” and so on.

      So you cheer on Blacks, Asians, and Jews in their pursuit of their ethnostates which they ALL have, but you are nauseated at the prospect of White people RECLAIMING theirs?

      Choke on it.

  2. Mark Quitta
    Mark Quitta says:

    It is a very terrible thing that Greg did to a man locked away for years that trusted him to write a review on his book.

    Matt Hale is locked away for 16 years of a forty year sentence. Matt writes a book, The Racial Loyalist Manifesto. Greg reads the book after I mailed it to him and asked him kindly to review Matt’s book and do a book review. He doesn’t write me back, does not write a review, he DOES WRITE A BOOK AND STEALS MATT’S IDEAS. SHAME!

    • Greg Johnson
      Greg Johnson says:

      I have been working on this book since the spring of 2017. The first versions of some of the chapters in it were published as far back as February 2014. I received the review copy of Matt Hale’s book sometime in 2018, after the first draft of my book was complete. I never had a chance to read the Hale book. I didn’t even glance at the table of contents.

      Given that timeline, it is a measure of the low levels of honesty and simple decency in this movement that Mark Quitta did not even bother ASKING me if I had read the Hale book or been influenced by it. He simply started accusing me of plagiarism. He has behaved shamefully, and he owes an apology to me and everybody he has deceived and gaslighted.

  3. Karen T
    Karen T says:

    It’s curious that Greg Johnson would specify “south Asians” consequently turning a blind eye to the dog eaters colonizing Australia and Canadas’ west coast.

  4. George F. Held
    George F. Held says:

    (19) How Women Weaken Nations (and why men let them) – YouTube
    For White Nationalists to succeed in creating white ethnostates, women suffrage would first have to be abolished. William Luther Pierce
    expressed his dismay at women’s involvement in politics, but white nationalists generally avoid this sensitive issue. Plack Pigeon Speaks addresses it explicitly in several videos which appear on sites like Youtube, the Unz Review and elsewhere. Youtube sometimes deletes them as unsuitable…
    How Women Dismantle NATIONS * / & other UNCOMFORTABLE TRUTHS
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOMkl3ApTK0
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dyX8-lFqBIc
    https://blackpigeonspeaks.com/
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPembXZMKv0

    • Nick Dean
      Nick Dean says:

      Jews would first have to be removed and White rule reinstated for ‘women’s suffrage … to be abolished.’

      And by that point you would have far fewer White women – and men – believing the proapaganda that persuades in either case only a small minority to tolerate race-replacement.

      Whites are not the problem, male or female. We are shown again and again in polls to be against every form of racial aggression we face. We just haven’t figured out how to get the Jews – who are the problem – off our throat.

      But deliberately creating division between White men and White women won’t help. Obviously.

    • Charlie
      Charlie says:

      The problem has been Feminists trained by the jew. The woman is vapid and bent towards self interests. Like a child a woman has to be guided but and because of feminization of the male in western societies the woman has been turned in to a slaver. The men have become stupid and weak and guided by their penis rather than their brain. They’re shown images of sub-human filth like Charlie Sheen and told that a man that behaves that way is cool rather than he should be killed.

  5. Rob Bottom
    Rob Bottom says:

    I have not yet read the book, but it seems to me that Johnson’s solution is much more realistic than you credit, even if it is far from bullet-proof. With the labels our enemies apply to us, he smartly presents the most peaceful imaginable plan. That we can get out of this mess the same way we got into it, gradually and without a shot fired, is the path of least resistance both politically and morally.

    What does it matter if it takes longer than you’ve got, so long as your grandchildren (and great-grandchildren) reap the benefits? We’re an impatient bunch, but given the current political and cultural zeitgeist, fantasies of forceful and immediate racial separation do nothing for us. We can’t pin our hopes on a man of action being elected that will sweep our problems away until our backs are against the wall, and by then it may be too late and would invariably involve much bloodshed. Johnson’s plan is at least a workable framework that any right-thinking political party might begin to set in motion today.

    • Nick Dean
      Nick Dean says:

      Johnson’s overtly liberal, egalitarian, peace-seeking ethno-state ‘idea’ is indeed the path of least resistance. It’s how most people already think the world kinda functions: Our country for us, your country for you; it’s what different countries are for, after all. Live and let live and so on.

      And these are ideas with particular and even unique appeal at least morally to Whites – who are the most overwhelmingly liberal, live and let live race.

      So why do Johnson, Spencer and lately Taylor and MacDonald insist on our movement being of the right? Why the insistence on endlessly divisive questions over metaphysics and metapolitics and religion and sexuality?

      Whether it starts with these men and a common peculiar personal psychological profile or ultimately has a more exotic and consciously hostile racial derivation, the directional swerve from a simple and appealing WN and live and let live liberalism to all the ‘New Right’ gibberish is deeply damaging to our nationalist cause.

      • Sutter
        Sutter says:

        Nick Dean,

        I think the reality here is that you do not really understand the philosophical depth and meaning of “liberalism” and of “the political right/left.”

        Liberalism, when we talk of it, is not just “being nice to people.” That is a colloquial definition. The philosophical meaning is something you, in particular, will probably need to read up on; I suggest John Gray.

      • Berne Mallow
        Berne Mallow says:

        Defining “us” and “you” by race is already extreme right in the eyes of nearly everyone. No white ethnostate would be allowed to flourish so long as the current elite is in place. If you want to proceed against the wishes of the elite then, barring violence, which would never work, your only chance is to make it possible to unseat that elite by persuasion, and for that purpose you need to be able to express your views openly in prime-time without unbearable consequences. Since nobody has figured out how to do that, let’s get some beer and watch the game.

        • Realist
          Realist says:

          “If you want to proceed against the wishes of the elite then, barring violence, which would never work, your only chance is to make it possible to unseat that elite by persuasion, and for that purpose you need to be able to express your views openly in prime-time without unbearable consequences. ”

          That’s ridiculous ruling out violence reduces the overthrow of the elite to a pipe dream.
          The elite control prime time.

      • Realist
        Realist says:

        “Johnson’s overtly liberal, egalitarian, peace-seeking ethno-state ‘idea’ is indeed the path of least resistance. It’s how most people already think the world kinda functions: Our country for us, your country for you; it’s what different countries are for, after all. Live and let live and so on.”

        The idea that white people will be able to regain their country through peace and love is a recipe for disaster.

  6. Evelyn A Hutcheson
    Evelyn A Hutcheson says:

    Matt Hale has been in solitary confinement for over 16 years at Florence Admax prison for a crime he did not commit. He wrote a book called “The Racial Loyalist Manifesto”. He asked that Greg Johnson read his book and do a book review on his book. Greg did read the book, he did not do a book review but he did steal ideas from “The Racial Loyalist Manifesto”, stealing Matt Hale’s writings. Sad but true! Shame on Greg Johnson.

    • Franklin Ryckaert
      Franklin Ryckaert says:

      If two people make an analysis of a problem and propose a solution and do that with intelligence and common sense, then it is likely they arrive at the same conclusions, no plagiarism is needed.

      • Charles Frey
        Charles Frey says:

        I entirely disagree with your ethnostate solution for reasons given later.

        However, on the Hale question, your explanation of the timeline did you a favor. He came with far too much baggage, with the ” judgment-proofing ” bankruptcy of his Church in Florida, his ” trademark/name ” dispute with a philosophically diametrically opposed Oregon Church, and, most significantly his Church’s Security Chief Benjamin Nathaniel Smith, who murdered the North Western U basketball coach Byrdsong in cold blood, in the presence of his daughter and son, in already tension-laden Skokie, Illinois: while in reality being an admitted FBI infiltrator of the Church.

        Hale was a graduated lawyer who was refused admission to the Illinois bar. According to the complete trial transcript available by clicking on your critics’ name, he was federally charged with one count of soliciting murder, of the Judge who decided in his favor, but who was subsequently ORDERED by the Appellate Court to reverse her judgment, rather than retry the case, pursuant to regular procedure. Additionally, two counts of obstructing justice; one involving the refusal to accept a parcel of papers including time-sensitive documents, from his acquaintance, the Fed Ex driver/courier.

        Hale wrote a summary account of the matter, [ accessible as above ] in which he asserted, that he was not present at part of the Jury selection among ca. 100 choices. If true, his lawyer did a fine job in striking many potential jurors off the list. As far as I can tell, his lawyer, contrary to Hale’s allegations, showed great professionalism in countering the Government’s expert prosecutor.

        I need yet a third day to finish the trial transcript, because I sniffed some extremely sophisticated shenanigans.

  7. Loren Rich
    Loren Rich says:

    One of the worst way they are destroying our race is by addiction. It would be so easy to stop, yet the “elites” keep the drugs flowing and the white kids buying. The absolute worst way is sending our best and brightest to fight stupid wars for Israel. I cannot believe these things are still happening. It makes no sense.

    • Karen T
      Karen T says:

      Please do not take this as a condemnation of your comment or as an insult to the good people of ‘middle America’ but the boys fighting Israels wars are not the best and brightest. Their chance for achievement was stolen years ago. Jobs were offshored, farms bought up by conglomerates, educational opportunities co-opted by affirmative action, and self-esteem stomped on by media. Joining the army was for many of them their only hope.

      • Richard B
        Richard B says:

        Karen T

        Absolutely spot on. The Army was their only hope. Which is why the hostile elite (who Dostoyevsky referred to as “merciless”) have replaced it with private security firms like Academi. The U.S. Military today is PC-infected with Identity Politics like every other social-institution in the Western world, thereby rendering it ineffectual. Which was the whole point.

        Notice, however, that this is not happening to the private security firms. Of course not.

      • Loren Rich
        Loren Rich says:

        Many of those who led the way and died first were special forces. The best we got. Certainly better than any politician or corporate titan.

    • Barkingmad
      Barkingmad says:

      I wonder why those “best & brightest” still haven’t noticed that Amerikwa’s been warring in the middle east since about 1991, to no avail, and maybe they should think twice about joining the “service”.

      No, those are not the best and brightest fighting wars for Israel. I see them interviewed on television with their arms & legs gone, and they say hey, man, that’s okay, the mission was worth it, it’s to keep the world safe for democracy, blah blah blah.

      • Fenria
        Fenria says:

        Another angle to these people joining the service is that they can’t get healthcare any other way. Just the other day, I overheard a waitress in a low paying pizza chain lament that she made an extra $17 last year which threw her off medi-cal and onto one of the Obamacare networks where she’s going to be paying several thousand dollars a year now for the most basic of garbage health plans, and she’s thinking of doing a two year tour of service just so that she can get some decent healthcare for herself and her family. That’s what’s happening out there.

        I agree that any white person willing to go fight and die for Israel at this point is little better than the rest of the human dross out there, but the individual story for most of these whites is that they’re stuck in low paying jobs, and now that health insurance is required by law, and absurdly expensive, they’re left with a scenario that some crappy bronze plan is going to eat 3/4 of their paycheck. It’s at a point where it actually is more financially advantageous to simply not work and live off the largess of welfare because all working in a low paying job will get you these days is the same quality of welfare style services, but you’ll bust your butt to get them. I’m so lucky that my husband’s county health insurance covers our whole family, because if we had to buy insurance on these Obamacare networks out there, we literally could not afford to pay our mortgage. That’s how insane it is.

        One of the reasons why I honestly bothered to go out and vote for an Israeli shill like Trump in the first place is because he promised to remove the mandate, which, of course, he hasn’t done.

        So that’s just some food for thought in terms of seeing another angle. I think one of the best things white employers can do is start to offer group coverage again within the workplace at reduced or subsidized rates so that healthcare can be one less worry on our people’s minds and maybe there wouldn’t be so many young white kids shuffling off to join the military because they can’t see any other way out of their financial situations.

        • Barkingmad
          Barkingmad says:

          Thanks for your polite and thorough response. It is appreciated. But I think that some of the guys who attend military college to become officers may not have such motivations as you describe. Maybe I’m wrong, though. Also, aren’t racial minorities supposedly overrepresented in the armed services, not whites.

      • Charles Frey
        Charles Frey says:

        Indeed, better to fail, statistically, even the lowered standards, by insufficient IQ, literacy and/or obesity in this ‘ volunteer ‘ force. All the more reason for a complicit MSM to feature them, twice whored-over, in order for the forces to keep their shelves well stocked; to spread Western, Israeli shared and determined Values in a moral vacuum.

        Why don’t the Jews simply recruit their own army in the US, as they did internationally, fighting for the Brits and to genocide the ‘ non-existent ‘ Palestinians ?

        I would rush to watch a parade of this Israeli-blue-uniformed international contingent of ” the most moral army in the world “; officered by Blitzer, the AIPAC leadership, the Fed, a third of NYC, Chicago and LA, Perle, the Clintons, Haley, Wurmser, Feith, Kristoll, Frum, a pardoned Weinstein and Polanski and a thousand more from the MSM, Congressional Caucuses and Pharma Industry.

        Preceded by a color guard waving the Star of David, its band playing Klezmer music. Lots of Rabbis carrying Torah Scrolls and copies of the uncensored Babylonian Talmud.

        It should include at least a company of Brooklyn live-chicken-swinging zealots to signal its essentially cultural war aims, commanded by a ” full Bird-” as opposed to Lt.-Colonel.

        Of course 100% funded from among their own.

  8. Peter
    Peter says:

    I’m currently in Estonia and enjoying it very much. Contrary to popular opinion, I find many of the people here friendly and often eager to help. I’m guessing this is probably a white ethno-state or close to it except that there are two primary ethnicities living side by side here. Estonians and Russians. But I have spoken to several young Russians and they told me they don’t feel discriminated against and are happy here. That is not what I heard when I was here about fifteen years ago. Also, I’ve only spoken to two people about this and a general feeling I have so it’s not a scientific survey. I consider this a very nice country and while the cost of living has increased, I think the standard of living has gone up too. I think the Estonians are an example of a hard working, intelligent people. I would guess I’ll say the same thing about Latvians when I visit there again.

    I would have a concern about some things that are discussed here, although I also generally support, or are at least sympathetic to them. My concern is what the Jews will do when they see this unfolding before them and I think about what they did when Germany pursued a policy of peacefully encouraging their emigration from Germany. They used their power in the mainstream media around the world to propagandize against Germany and Germans, spreading hatred and fear, and pushing for war, similar to what the Jewish media is doing to “whites” now. I support the peaceful movement of Jews out of white countries, assuming that is what those countries want, but I fear the Jews will use their media power to create ethnic conflict and war again, exactly as they did to lead the world into WW II. With perhaps a handful of exceptions, I believe it’s best for most countries to move Jews out of their countries.

  9. Charlie
    Charlie says:

    A divided nation will not serve Whites. Coloreds are destroyers and not builders. Like what was seen in South Africa with paying the races of colored brown skin, the colors use up the resources given to them through the productivity of the White race. Once the resources are depleted the races of colored brown skin will war and destroy and murder to gain more resources rather than become productive themselves. With seven times the testosterone of other races (natures way of counter acting high death rates in their species) they are natural born rapists and homicidal in nature. They can not be domesticated and further attempts to do so should be immediately stopped and no further money should be spent on them. Let them war and then answer that war with superior forces and eliminate them from further destroying Earth for their own mouth breathing survival. If it had not been for the Jew, the colored races would have naturally gone extinct and this problem would not have existed. Furthermore ALL jews should be subjugated. Removed from any position of power and made to work off the debt that they have incurred and once they are no longer useful for slave labor, they should be eliminated as well.

  10. Greg Johnson
    Greg Johnson says:

    I want to thank Richard McCulloch for this thoughtful and gratifyingly positive review. As for the issue of the timetable for creating the ethnostate, that is a minor point of disagreement. As for my response to his criticisms, I can’t improve on Rob Bottom’s statement above. Once again, thanks Richard.

  11. bruno
    bruno says:

    Like my father and grandfather I have been consuming material pertaining to EuroMan for several decades. This article was immensely enjoyed. As for the bickering in the commentary section I have seen this within EuroMan’s environments in several countries.

    I particularly enjoyed the remarks pertaining to the Baltic states. Having resided in Warsaw and Europe for several years my dream was to purchase a home in a warm section of the USA. This would be for two or three months during each winter season. The rest of time would have been to continue enjoying life within EuroMan’s environment.

    Not all, but many of those reading material, such as that emanating from TOO, have no real conception of what it’s like to reside amongst your own. I would go for months without seeing Apes, monkeys (orangutans, chimpanzees, etc.) and other animals. It was a great feeling that most will never experience and/or comprehend.

    In my younger years I immensely enjoyed visiting metropolitan areas such as London. Around, or should I say, in the late 1960s or early 1970s, I stopped visiting such cities.

    Near the end of 1981 martial law was declared and I returned to America. I spent about a year traveling around from state to state. This is done in cages (automobiles) and on motorcycles. Hundreds of hotels were slept in, as campsites we’re also enjoyed. I have no time to expand about cultural changes, such as European kultura being taken over by the third world within hotels. The USA was always cherished but witnessing demographic changes was more than heartbreaking. Those who have not seen both sides of the coin can only hypothesize.

    Later, for years I would take various motorcycles and drive from Coast to Coast. I would recommend doing this because such exploration learning adventures cannot be taught in schools.

    My grandfather would have been heartbroken to see what has become of this great country. As I look back on life I can emphatically assert but I have known many great men. Kevin McDonald is one of the great men of our people. We can all be thankful we have been blessed to know such a unique individual.

    As for Dr. Greg Johnson I will purchase his book and wish him well. As for Mr. Matt Hale, it is a pity that most people will never know who he is. Like many in Mother Europe’s neighborhoods he has been railroaded.

    Like most within TOO’s World I will continue to enjoy the writings by those trying to help our people. As it stands today, in all probability, ethnic states will involve within the USA.

    Western Europe might fall, unless actual fighting occurs. If conflict prevails will Washington intervene? Whatever, much of that region will absorb plenty from the third world newbees. East Central and Eastern Europe will remain European.

    A major problem that might sink much of the West is that of promiscuous females. Ambulate in London, Paris, Brussels, New York, Chicago, Tampa, St. Louis, Detroit… and you will see the behavior of an uncountable number who have betrayed their civilization, people, family and even children.

    • Michael Adkins
      Michael Adkins says:

      bruno,

      “promiscuous females”

      It’s a two-way street. Just look at all the hipsters, henntasters and thralls.

  12. Bennis Mardens
    Bennis Mardens says:

    Greg,
    Anybody that follows you knows that you’ve had these ideas for many years.
    Countercurrents has been around for along time.
    Many of us think along the same lines, so naturally we will share some of the same
    ideas.

  13. Sutter
    Sutter says:

    So what I am most interested in is not so much a summarization of Greg’s many theses of White Nationalism, as it is the lines of argumentation he uses to prove his theses.

    For example, he mentions the JQ as one of the four things we cannot compromise on. Why is it so important? I (kind of) agree, but he needs good argument for this, and I’d like to hear it, and any decent Occidental Observer article should go over such arguments.

    As another example, he claims white extinction is inevitable. But how does he prove this, or argue this? Certainly he cannot simply assert it. Well, he can, but then he would just be spinning his wheels. There are some attempts at modelling our demographic future, not only by Gallup, but by individual academics. I’d like to know if Greg does a sufficiently good job of documenting demographic maps of American cities with accompanying racial statistics, mainstream demographic survey predictions, predictions of mainstream ecological models, etc. We need to understand that until our fight is over, we must NEVER quit gathering and proclaiming evidence for our most contentious and consequential beliefs. Evidence matters!

    And once again, this is far more important than the theses alone – which have been repeated millions of times on counter-currents and Occidental Observer, which everyone knows by now – and therefore this should be the main interest of any book review.

    • silviosilver
      silviosilver says:

      As another example, he claims white extinction is inevitable. But how does he prove this, or argue this?

      I agree that, on present trends, extinction is inevitable. In my experience, it is much more difficult to accept the proof for this claim than it is to provide that proof. I’ll try anyway.

      In order to maintain its numbers, a population requires its women to give birth, on average, to slightly over 2 children each generation – a figure referred to as the ‘total fertility rate.’ (Numbers like 2.1 or 2.2 are often asserted. The only reason the number isn’t precisely 2.0 is the need to make up for those who die before they reproduce.) If a population sustains a total fertility rate of less than 2 for long enough, that population will begin to decline.

      When white females breed with non-whites, this reduces the white fertility rate. That is, white women may be having 2 children on average, but if the rate of racial interbreeding is 10%, then the white total fertility rate will only be 1.8. The rate of interbreeding can only be estimated, but can today reliably be said to lie in the region of 20%. Since the total fertility of white women today is about 1.75 (as it has been for four decades), the white total fertility rate of white women is a perilously low 1.4.

      Clearly, white numbers are set to decline.

      The argument that white extinction is inevitable is premised on the fact that there is nothing preventing the interbreeding rate from climbing from today’s 20% all the way to 100%. Should that happen, the white total fertility rate would fall to 0 children.

      It can be difficult to accept that the interbreeding rate could some day reach 100%. People who themselves refuse to interbreed, tend to feel that there will always be people who likewise refuse. And because such people often have a solid understanding of heredity, they feel such traits will always be passed down to subsequent generations. However, as powerful as heredity is, it is characterized by variability, it can not guarantee immunity to interbreeding.

      No matter how strongly opposed to miscegenation a reader of this comment may be, there is no way he can guarantee that his offspring will feel as strongly. Even if nine out of ten generations of his descendants feel as strongly as he does, all it takes is that one in ten generation to interbreed for whites to move nearer to extinction. In the fullness of time, the assumption must be that these less genetically committed generations will interbreed.

      Of course, well before whites become factually extinct – 100% interbreeding – they will have become such a small minority – perhaps some .001% of the population – that whites could be considered effectively extinct. At that point, would it really matter much whether some minute remnant portion of whites, genetically all but immune to interbreeding, lived on?

      There are only two ways to avoid this fate. The first and more reliable is control some territory populated solely by whites and from which non-whites can be excluded. This ensures that any breeding which occurs will occur solely between whites.

      The second and vastly less reliable way is to somehow ensure that whites who breed with whites have a total fertility rate of greater than 2. It is difficult to see how this could truly be ensured. Perhaps a state which was devoted to the racial survival of whites (or indeed the survival of all its racial groups), might attempt to incentivize intraracial fertility while simultaneously penalizing interracial fertility. If successful, this would indeed have the desired effect – that is, it would not be in vain – however the degree of racial understanding and racial commitment required for such a state to be created (and sustained) would be even greater than that required for racial separation (which requires comparatively much less understanding and commitment to sustain than to create).

      • Richard B
        Richard B says:

        “The argument that white extinction is inevitable is premised on the fact that there is nothing preventing the interbreeding rate from climbing from today’s 20%”

        Curious to know, where did you got this 20% number from?

  14. Andrea Ostrov Letania
    Andrea Ostrov Letania says:

    What white people need to do is SHAME non-whites who move to white nations. White people call them white-preferist. White people must point out that non-whites hate their own people & culture and run to live with white people.

    Non-whites must be made aware of their white-preferism. If they are so proud of who they are, why do they flee from their own kind to live under white rulers? Why do they prefer whites as sexual partners over their own kind?

    Non-whites accuse whites of ‘white supremacism’, but they must believe whites are supreme IF they are willing to run from their homeland and their people in favor of white lands and white people.

    • Franklin Ryckaert
      Franklin Ryckaert says:

      You can “shame” only people who have a sense of honor. Parasites by definition have no sense of honor. Thus you cannot shame Jews or the various non-Whites who want to parasitize on the White man’s civilization. They would accuse you of “anti-Semitism” or “racism” for doing so.

  15. silviosilver
    silviosilver says:

    Before making a couple of specific criticisms of Richard McCulloch’s points, I would like to take the opportunity to offer him some praise. I have read all of his books (a couple of them many times over), as well as every article and essay of his I have been able to find. In over a decade of my own reading about, thinking about and commenting on race, no WN writer has influenced my own racial political views more than McCulloch has (approbation all the more noteworthy considering that I was not part of his original intended audience). It is a great pity that his work is not better known. I would urge readers unfamiliar with him to peruse his essay “The Preservationist Imperative,” which appeared in the June 1995 issue of American Renaissance. In that piece, McCulloch succinctly answers almost every ‘deep’ objection that opponents of separation throw up (‘deep’ as opposed to the cheap, go-to objections – ‘racist’, ‘nazi’,’anti-semite’ – they customarily resort to). But any piece from McCulloch on race is always worth reading.

    On the question of time-tabling racial separation, my view is that, at some point, a go-slow separation may well be the only option left. If the awareness of a problem is a necessary precursor to the acceptance of a solution to that problem, then by the time a sufficient number of whites are aware of the need for separation, it is quite possible that the only way of effecting separation will be in cooperation with at least some members of other races. Other races are unlikely to lend support to white preservationist efforts if this is viewed as requiring a headlong rush into separation. WNs today – and probably for a long time yet – would be unwilling to agree that cross-racial cooperation is necessary or desirable, but I am of the view that the day is fast approaching when such cooperation will be essential, and thus I tailor my racial opinions with this in mind. (For WNs of the view that whites can always shoot their way out of the mess, I note that in May of this year the Basque separatist group ETA finally threw in the towel. The surrender is notable when one considers how many of the preconditions for independence were met by the Basque nation; I imagine the hurdle they ultimately failed on was demographics – a predicament similar to what whites face.)

    McCulloch fears that too wide a separation window would permit anti-white forces an opportunity to turn back pro-white gains, but such fears undervalue Greg Johnson’s metapolitical approach. A review of the past fifty years surely demonstrates that the left’s metapolitical hegemony meant the left could afford to sustain significant setbacks – eg the elections of Nixon and Reagan – without having to give back any of the cultural ground they had won. The left’s primary objective of economic equality still eludes them (and may it always do so!), but conservative electoral triumphs have hardly shaken leftist intellectual hegemony. As far as the left is concerned, it is very much as though they set out to make economic equality the crowning glory of a multi-decade metapolitical effort. From this vantage point, leftists could indeed view themselves as remaining on track to achieve that goal. I cannot see why the same should not apply to racialists and the goal of racial separation.

    • Trenchant
      Trenchant says:

      Separatism faces historically novel structural challenges, ie. ease and affordability of travel and communication. Technology endures, so I suppose political and cultural barriers will have to compensate for geography’s reduced role.

  16. silviosilver
    silviosilver says:

    There are people who insist on combining White Nationalism with a list of Right-wing add-ons…[and] insist that these peripheral issues are essential to White preservationism … . This approach is guaranteed to create a smaller, weaker, dumber, poorer, and less effective … movement, when we need to go in precisely the opposite direction.

    I agree. But then how does Greg explain his tendency to pair WN with what he calls the “New Right” or simply “the Right” (big-R), including the ceaseless invocation of historical figures allegedly associated with it? Greg is surely entitled to promote his personal preferences, but his doing so does not give the impression of going in “precisely the opposite direction.”

  17. Tomislav Tom Sunic, PhD
    Tomislav Tom Sunic, PhD says:

    Greg’s book, or for that matter anybody’s book dealing with methods of White survival, needs to be commended. However let’s face the facts and stop wallowing in self-delusion. The survival of Whites is questionable — no question about it. However, the deadliest enemies of Whites have always been Whites themselves. The loudest opponents of white ethnostates today are white members of Antifa, Dems, or SJWs, both in the EU and the US. Scattered non-Europeans, trailing behind, serve only as sparse decorum.
    Add to that that the entire history of Western civilization has been replete with civil wars and inter-White hatred — Jews, Arabs, Blacks, aliens notwithstanding.
    For millennia Whites have been butchering each other. Start with a mythical civil war between Achaeans ( Greeks) and Trojans; then the very real 30 year Peloponnesian War pitting White Athenians against White Spartans—which completely depleted the white genepool. Then again, civil and social wars between Romans in the late Roman Republic and early Roman Empire of the 1st ct.
    Then comes the Thirty Years civil war in Central Europe in the mid-17th ct., swallowing up to 1/3 of the Germanic genepool. Lest we not forget in 1861 the American South was pitted against the North, followed, from 1914 to 1945, by a huge civil war between Whites. To top it off the recent war between Serbs and Croats in ex-Yugoslavia, tensions between Ukrainians and Russians don’t bode well for our tales about white ethnostates.
    Surely we have all, incl Kevin MaDonald, much written about empirical evidence about why our in-groups are part of our identity and thus worth sacrificing for ( I feel relieved when seeing even a drunk leftist White entering a subway car am sitting in when in multiracial London or Paris late at night).
    However, it would be delusional to assume that the creation of white ethnostate will automatically spell the arrival of a White la-la-land. Our enemies are well aware of Whites’ genetic propensity for extreme individualism and in-group infighting, Promethean stubbornness, Hamlet’s compulsive neurosis, Faust’s suicidal dreams, and inter-White Dantesque jealousy.
    Add to that the devastating Christian teaching on Original Sin – no wonder we are submerged today with massive and widespread feelings of White self-hate.
    We need to focus in TOO more on the sociobiological aspects a of civil wars—which, as a rule, are more savage than wars against non-White out-groups.

    • Richard McCulloch
      Richard McCulloch says:

      In the later 1970’s the original working title of my first book (“The Ideal and Destiny,” 1982) was “Western Man Against Himself,” indicating that it was largely concerned with the internal racial problems Dr. Sunic addresses. It is quite correct that our main problem is in ourselves, or in our own race, in the faults and weaknesses of mind and character that cause or enable so many to be turned against the most vital interests of their race. So nothing new about that.
      As to our long history of intraracial warfare, as regrettable as it was, it is hard to imagine the progress and achievements of the last 2,500 years without that hard school and the intense competition it fostered. And as hard as it was, our race was always still here afterward, still existing, and probably reached the peak of its existence (as of this date) shortly after the last and greatest of those wars.
      But what we face now is an existential threat truly different in kind from anything we have faced before, with stakes that are far greater. And since it is something new, we have no successful precedent to follow, nothing from our historical record to guide us in dealing with it. Yet we have to find a way, for if we fail this time it will be the last battle of our existence and when it is over we won’t be here anymore.
      But before we can win that battle we first have to win the battle within our own race, the battle to get our race, or at least the great majority of it, fighting for its own side. That is the metapolitical battle for the hearts and minds of our race stressed by Dr. Johnson, which is a battle of ideas, raising racial consciousness and situational awareness, and nothing can do that more powerfully than to focus on the ultimate existential problem of our ongoing racial destruction, as found in this book. If and when we win that internal battle, the greatest and most decisive of battles, the outcome of the struggle for our existence, including the struggle against the other races, will be in little doubt.

  18. Armor
    Armor says:

    It may be smart to present the process of racial separation as something that can be achieved peacefully over a fifty-year period. It’s true that a lot can be done peacefully. We can give people money to leave, and start giving less money to those who lag behind. It sounds less frightening put that way. But if we ever get in power, the best course would be to get rid of the non-Whites as quickly as we can.

    Before we start expelling them, the first step will be to secure our political power. Here again, a lot can be done peacefully. We don’t want to frighten White people, give arguments to the Jews, or get banned from the comments section. But we will have to set up prisoner camps and get rid of the anti-White networks. Then we will have to do massive, continuous, very aggressive pro-White propaganda –the opposite of what the Jews are doing now. There will have to be show trials. Any public discourse against racial separation will have to be banned. That will ensure White solidarity and cohesion.

    When we start expelling people, we should try to send as many as we can back to their ancestral homelands. If their countries refuse to take them back, we should exert pressure. Then we’ll have to find other landing places for the rest of the non-Whites. It could be a piece of Africa, a piece of the USA, a piece of territory straddling Mexico and the USA…

    In their new country, they will need our financial support and economic cooperation. If we have to organize the creation of non-white settlements, I think a number of people could be put back to work on small farms. It would be a good way to recreate a working society. Then we can help them with other industries and services. In fact, we may have to do the same for White countries. White society has gone downhill under ZOG. The wealth has become concentrated in a small section of the population. We need to find ways to recreate a working society for us too.

    But maybe it sounds better if we talk about a long process of racial separation stretching over fifty years. If White nationalists ever get the political power, they will have to make hard decisions that cannot be openly discussed today.

    • TJ
      TJ says:

      As long as (((they))) control finance we will be stymied.

      We need an ingenious way to make an end run around the money hegemon- our own money system that they cannot infiltrate. The whole idea is to drop out and stop supporting the existing system.

    • maxsnafu
      maxsnafu says:

      “In their new country, they will need our financial support…”
      Given what they’ve already cost us I think we’ve paid enough.

  19. Richard B
    Richard B says:

    “Dr. Johnson is quite correct in his observation that many Whites are clueless about our ultimate racial problem. Even Whites who are in the top ranks of the judiciary, science, mathematics, business, etc.”

    The problem is not reaching these people. The problem is that these people can’t be reached.

    Orwell talked about the power of facing unpleasant facts. But I think this fact is so unpleasant that many in our movement can’t face it. Perhaps out of fear that it will drive them to despair.

    You just can not make people want this. The best you can do is be there for them when they do.

  20. Andrea Ostrov Letania
    Andrea Ostrov Letania says:

    Three things that are most important to a people are Land, Women, and Narrative.

    Land secures their existence and survival. Women produce future patriots and defenders. And Narrative connects those in the present with heroes and martyrs of the past, thus filling hearts and minds with pride and determination.

    But PC says white lands don’t belong to whites. They belong to all the world and to migrant-invaders. PC says white women don’t belong to white men. If anything, white women should reject ‘white patriarch racists’ and have their white wombs be colonized by black seed and produce black babies(who effectively kill white-babies-that-could-have-been in the nest). And PC says white Narrative is ‘racist’ and must be destroyed. Knock down white statues and infect white minds with the Narrative of White Evil and White Guilt. Strike one, strike two, strike three. You’re out. This is how a people lose and how a civilization ends.

Comments are closed.